Question: What is the source to mark [the place of graves]?

Answer (R. Berachiyah and R. Yakov bar bas Yakov citing R. Chuniya of Beras Chavran, R. Yosi citing R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Chuniya of Beras Chavran, R. Chizkiyah citing R. Uzi'el brei d'R. Chuniya of Beras Chavran citing R. Chuniya of Beras Chavran): "V'Tamei Tamei Yikra" - in order that Tum'ah calls to you with its mouth, and tells you 'separate.'

(R. Ila citing R. Shmuel bar Nachman): "V'Avru ha'Ovrim ba'Aretz v'Ra'ah Etzem" teaches that we mark for bones; "Adam" teaches that we mark for a spine or skull; "u'Vanah" teaches that we mark on a fixed rock;

If you will say that we mark on a detached rock, it can go and be Metamei in another place (people will err to consider its new location Tamei, and its initial location Tahor).

"Etzlo" - we mark in a place of Taharah; "Tziyon" - this is the source to mark.

If one found a marked rock, even though we do not use a rock for a Siman, anything that towers over it is Tamei. I say that a constricted Tum'ah (e.g. a Mes buried vertically) was underneath it.

If there were two [marked rocks], one who towers over them is Tahor; in between them is Tamei. (They were made to mark off the place in between; they themselves are in a place of Taharah.)

If in between them was plowed, [surely they do not show that the place in between is Tamei! Rather,] they are like individual [marked rocks]. In between them is Tahor, and underneath them is Tamei.

(Beraisa): We do not mark for [a k'Zayis of] flesh; perhaps it decayed (and people will be Metamei what is really Tahor).

Question (R. Yusta bar Shunam, to R. Mana): Is it not found that he is Metamei Taharos retroactively (Until some decays, it is really Tamei, but people consider it Tahor!)

Answer (R. Mana): It is better that people stumble through this temporarily, and not stumble through this permanently.

Note: Perhaps we can add that presumably, some will decay and it will lose its Tum'ah in a short time, before people will forget that there was Tum'ah here.

(Mishnah): Semichah of Chachamim [on Par Helam Davar] and beheading Eglah Arufah is through three [Chachamim]. R. Shimon says so.

R. Yehudah says, five [are needed].

What is the reason of R. Shimon? "V'Samchu Ziknei" teaches two. We do not make an even Beis Din, so we add one more; there are three.

What is the reason of R. Yehudah? "V'Samchu" teaches two. "Ziknei" teaches two, and we do not make an even Beis Din, so we add one more; there are five.

Regarding Eglah Arufah, R. Yehudah's reason is, "Zekenecha" teaches two, "v'Shoftecha" teaches two, and we do not make an even Beis Din (i.e. with an even number of judges), so we add one more; there are five.

(Rebbi): R. Shimon's words are seen [appear to be correct] regarding Semichah, and R. Yehudah's words regarding Arifah;

R. Shimon's words are seen regarding Semichah, for he does not expound "v'Samchu" (it is needed for the simple meaning). R. Yehudah's words are seen regarding Arifah, for he does not expound "v'Yatz'u" (it is needed for the simple meaning, but he expounds Zekenecha and v'Shoftecha).

If you would say that R. Yehudah's words are seen regarding Eglah Arufah, that he expounds "v'Yatz'u" (just like he expounds v'Samchu regarding Semichah), you would say that v'Yatz'u teaches two, Zekenecha teaches two, v'Shoftecha teaches two, and we do not make an even Beis Din, so we add one more; there are seven!

Question: How does R. Shimon expound Zekenecha and v'Shoftecha? (He should learn two from each of them, like R. Yehudah does!)

Answer #1: [It teaches] Zekenecha who are Shoftecha.

Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Zekenecha is the Great Beis Din (Sanhedrin). V'Shoftecha is the king and Kohen Gadol.

(Mishnah): If [the corpse] was found hidden in a mound, or hanging from a tree, or floating on the water, we do not behead, for it says "ba'Adamah", and not hidden in a mound; "Nofel", and not hanging from a tree; "ba'Sadeh", and not floating on the water.

If it is found near the border (of Eretz Yisrael), or near a city that has Nochrim, or near a city without a Beis Din (of 23), they do not measure; [they measure] only to a city that has a Beis Din. (HA'AMUK DAVAR Devarim 21:7 - in Halachah 6, we expound 'we did not have the opportunity to kill the murderer, and exempt him.' This shows that we discuss a Beis Din of 23, which can execute.)

The text of the Mishnayos and Bavli is 'it is mostly Nochrim.' It is a Chidush to say that we do not bring whenever there are two Nochrim in a nearby city, even if they are elderly and very weak.

If it is found to be exactly midway between two cities, the two cities bring two calves (each brings one). R. Eliezer says so;

Chachamim say, one city brings Eglah Arufah; two cities do not bring two calves.

Yerushalayim does not bring Eglah Arufah.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If he was found choked and hanging from a tree, they do not behead.

(R. Yosi bar Yehudah): You need not say that he was choked and hanging from a tree. (Even if he was merely choked, they do not behead.)

What is the source that even if he was cast on the ground and choked, they do not behead? It says "Chalal". (Perhaps choking is too distant from "ba'Chalal Cherev" (Bamidbar 19:16) - PF.)

Why does it say "Nofel"? Even if he was killed and hanging from a tree; they do not behead.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing R. Yochanan): If he was found standing on his bed and a knife was inserted in his heart, they do not behead. (KORBAN HA'EDAH - this is not "ba'Adamah" or "Nofel". DEVAR AVRAHAM 1:6 - also, surely this is in the city; in a city, measuring does not apply.)

Question: R. Shimon ben Yochai taught that they do behead!

Answer: This teaching of R. Shimon ben Yochai depends on texts and [opposite] texts (of the argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about shaving a Nazir without hair, i.e. must the verse be fulfilled like it says);

(R. Yochanan): All these teachings of R. Shimon ben Yochai [in which he does not require like the verse says, e.g. here, and Arifah in a Nachal that is not Eisan, and putting Dam Asham on a Metzora without a right thumb] depend on texts and texts. They are an individual's opinion; we do not rely on them. (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI Yevamos 12:2.)

If [the body] was found clearly closest to one city, they would measure, to fulfill the Mitzvah of engaging in measuring.

Rav descended to there (Bavel). He said, I am Ben Azai of here (I am ready to answer any question).

An elder came and asked, if two Mesim were found, one on top of the other, [what is the law]? Rav wanted to say, they behead.

The elder: They do not behead! Rav asked why; he said, [they do not behead for] the bottom, because it is hidden, and [not for] the top, for it is floating (not resting on the ground).

When [Rav] came to here (Eretz Yisrael), he came in front of Rebbi. [Rebbi] told him, [the elder] told you properly (the correct Halachah, but for a different reason) - "Ki Yimatzei", and not 'Ki Yimatzu.'

It is not reasonable [like our text of the Mishnah excludes hidden in a mound from "ba'Adamah", and floating on the water from "ba'Sadeh"], rather, "ba'Adamah", and not floating on the water; "ba'Sadeh", and not hidden in a mound. A Tana from the house of Rebbi taught so.

Contradiction: Rabanan contradict themselves! Here they say [that "ba'Sadeh"] excludes what is hidden, and there (Shichechah) they say [that "ba'Sadeh"] includes what is hidden!

Resolution: There, Sadecha is exposed, to exclude what is hidden, and Ketzircha is exposed, to exclude what is hidden. An exclusion followed by an exclusion comes to include what is hidden;

However, here, "ba'Adamah" excludes [a body] floating on the water. (There is not a second exclusion for what is hidden, so it is excluded.)

If it is found near the border [they do not behead], for I say that bandits killed him. [If it was near] a city that has Nochrim, I say that Nochrim killed him.

Or if it was near a city without a Beis Din, they do not measure; [they measure] only to a city that has a Beis Din, for it says "Yadeinu Lo Shafchu Es ha'Dam ha'Zeh..."

What is the reason of Chachamim [to say that two cities do not bring two calves]? "V'Hayah ha'Ir ha'Kerovah El ha'Chalal."

What is the reason of R. Eliezer [to say that two cities can bring two calves]? "U'Madedu El he'Arim Asher Sevivos he'Chalal."

Question: Arei Miklat, what is their law [do they bring Eglah Arufah]?

Answer: If you will say that they were given for division (to the Shevatim, and they gave to the Leviyim), they bring Eglah Arufah. If you will say that they were [not given for division, rather, they were given for residence], they do not bring Eglah Arufah. (The Bavli explains that Yerushalayim does not bring, because it says "in the land that you were given to inherit it", and the Tana holds that Yerushalayim was not apportioned to the Shevatim.)

(Mishnah): From where do we measure? R. Eliezer says, we measure from his navel;

R. Akiva says, we measure from his nose;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, we measure from the place he became a corpse, from his neck.

(Gemara): From where do we measure? R. Eliezer says, from his navel, from the place from where he was created;

R. Akiva says, from his nose, from the place from which the face is recognized;

This is like Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, "Hakaras Peneihem Onsah Bam" - this is the nose.

(R. Chiya bar Ba): One who wants that people not recognize him, he should put bandages on his nostrils, and he will not be recognized.

This is like in the days of King Arsakinas, people of Tzipori were summonsed [to the king]. They put bandages on their nostrils, and they were not recognized.

In the end, people informed on them (that they did so), and all of them were caught.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, we measure from the place he became a corpse, from the neck.

Question: What is the source?

Answer (R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua): "Lases Osah Al Tzavarei Chalelei Resha'im."

(Mishnah): If the head was found in one place, and the body elsewhere, we bring the head to the body. R. Eliezer says so;

R. Akiva says, we bring the body to the head.

(Gemara - R. Lazar): They argue about burial (where we bury the body).

(R. Shmuel citing R. Yonason): When do they argue? It is when [the area was sloped, and] the head is above and the body was below (they argue about which stayed where it fell, and which rolled), but if the head was below and the body was above, all agree that we bring the head to the body (the body would not roll upwards).

Question: If it was sloped on both sides (in the middle was higher than both of them), I say that the head went in one place (direction) and the body went in one place (the other direction) - or, (they are from two Mesim, and) this head has no body, and this body has no head?

If it was level ground - wherever it is normal for the head to be cut off [and it would land this far from the body, we say that both] are [from] one body. (Also, the head must be appropriate for the body - SEFER NIR.) If not, (they are from two Mesim, and) this head has no body, and this body has no head